pf_03541 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5.8 Section 1013.02 states: Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the city council shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, to vary any such provision in harmony with the general purpose and intent thereof and may impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the public health, safety, and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. 5.9 State Statute 462.357, subd. 6 (2) provides authority for the city to "hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.... The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect" 5.10 The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls: Currently Mr. Norris is unable to construct any improvements that expand the principal structure footprint to the north or west. These two areas have 30 foot minimum setbacks, for which the principal structure is currently considered pre-existing non-conforming due to the installation of the frontage road and how setbacks are applied to a comer lot versus an interior lot. There is also no reasonable option allowing the replacement or expansion of garage space on the parcel without a variance to the west property line setback. Given the current site conditions and those that existed prior to the installation of the frontage road, the Community Development Department has determined that a 26 foot by 60 foot attached garage is not a reasonable addition for this parcel. Staff does, however, support a reduce attached garage (26 feet x 52 feet) that meets the same 21 foot rear yard (north) setback as the house and lies no closer than 10 feet from the side yard (west) property line. The Community Development Staff has determined that the property can be made more livable and put to a reasonable and practical use under the official controls, if variances are granted. 5.11 The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: The Norris home was constructed in 1954 on an irregular shaped lot that was modified (slightly enlarged) when the frontage road was installed (by adding a small remnant of Lot 4). The home is constructed 21 feet from the rear property line. The original lot, considered an interior lot, changed to a comer lot, which designation created setback complexities that are applied to the parcel, specifically, the front, side and PF3541 - ReA 121503 - Page 4 of7